Gurnam Singh v. State Of Punjab And ORS

CWP-1816-2021 - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1816-2021 Date of decision: 17.02.2025 Gurnam Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present:- M r. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the action of the respondents of not considering and granting the petitioner promotion on the post of Joint Director (Feed & Fodder).

2.

The judgment of this Court in Madan Lal and others vs. State of Punjab , CWP-9325-2011, decided on 25.04.2013, Annexure P-2, directing that the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners therein as also other similarly placed employees who fulfill the requisite experience for consideration to the post of Joint Director (Feed and Fodder), would not take in its sweep the case of the petitioner, since, as a matter of fact he, as candidly admitted by his learned counsel became eligible only in the year 2019.

3.

Similarly, the instructions dated 08.05.2017, Annexure P-9 would not come to his aid, as it is specifically mentioned therein that DPC was to be conducted as per the requirement. Furthermore, it is his own case set up that though recommendation for granting him officiating charge was also made on 29.07.2020, however, it had not been granted, is sufficient to HAMANT 2025.02.18 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1816-2021 - 2 - conclude that the respondent-Department was not requiring to man the post, as has been envisaged in the Instructions, which have neither been challenged nor the learned counsel for the petitioner able to demonstrate that a junior was considered, while he was left out.

4.

The petitioner was not left without being promoted, as he concededly was to another post of Fodder Development Officer. Moreover the post in question also stood abolished on 30.11.2020, a fact that his learned counsel was unable to rebut.

5.

As an upshot of the afore, the present petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed .

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 17.02.2025 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No HAMANT 2025.02.18 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document